Category: microsoft

Recent Posts
microsoft, Misc

Don’t mention it’s Vista!

Did you hear about “new” operating system from microsoft named “Mojave”?

Microsoft last week traveled to San Francisco, rounding up Windows XP users who had negative impressions of Vista. The subjects were put on video, asked about their Vista impressions, and then shown a “new” operating system, code-named Mojave. More than 90 percent gave positive feedback on what they saw. Then they were told that “Mojave” was actually Windows Vista. (CNET)

Lately, probably a ‘cool’ suggestion would be ‘why not test drive a hackintosh‘… to forget, at least, vista experience!!


Microsoft to Release .NET Framework Source Code

You’re up late one night writing code. Maybe it’s a technology you’re just learning or something you haven’t tried before. You’re getting an exception from deep in the code. You can’t figure out why…the blogs aren’t helping, the newsgroups aren’t helping, the docs aren’t helping. The next day you call product support. Since they don’t have your code in front of them, it’s also hard for them to triangulate what’s going on.

Now, imagine you’ve got source and symbols available. With that, you can enable “Break on Exception” in your debugger, run your scenario, and have the debugger stop exactly where the exception was thrown. The code gets loaded up and you sniff around a bit and realize – duh! – you forgot to set some other piece of state in an earlier call or a parameter. You fix your code and you’re off and running.

Even with one of the decompilers (e.g. Reflector) that you can easily get out there, this can be tricky to solve. With the source it’s much, much easier.

And BIG news is Microsoft making .NET framework sources available to developers. From Shawn Burke’s Blog:

For any of you that have been following my blog, you may remember that I made a splash with a post about possible ways to release Windows Forms source code. This generated a lot of discussion and was picked up by many of the major tech websites out there. That was in February of 2005…

…Today is an exciting day for us here Microsoft and our developers, see ScottGu’s Blog for the big announcement: We will be releasing .NET Framework Source Code as part of the VS 2008 (Orcas) release.

They getting code ready for release, the current launch lineup is (in no particular order):

* Base Class Libraries (mscorlib.dll)
* ASP.NET (System.Web.dll)
* Windows Forms (System.Drawing.DLL & System. Windows.Forms.dll)
* ADO.NET (System.Data.DLL)
* XML (System.Xml.DLL)
* WPF (System.Windows.DLL)

Podcast on Scott Hanselman’s “Hanselminutes” contains a lots more detail. Unfortunately their licensing terms mean that developers only have a read-only view of the source and there wont be any ability to reuse it for Mono etc.


Microsoft Excel Can’t Multiply

We all learned how to multiply with pencil and paper, even great big numbers and decimals. But when it comes to something important like a blueprint or a scientific formula we reach for a calculator – or a spreadsheet. That’s much more reliable, right? Well, not if the spreadsheet is Excel 2007. Over the weekend a member of the microsoft.public.excel newsgroup revealed that Excel 2007 thinks that 850*77.1 is 100,000. What’s the correct answer? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Anybody? Right, it should be 65,535. Other members verified that the error carries over into some (but not all) calculations based on the incorrect result. Microsoft has been informed of the bug, but hasn’t yet formulated a response.

UPDATE: Microsoft recognizes the problem and assures us that Excel Will Learn to Multiply.

GOOD NEWS: The Excel team has dissected the problem in detail and is working feverishly to swat this Excel bug.

If it were just 850*77.1 that gave a wrong answer, we could probably work around that. But there are tons of other problem numbers, as I discovered for myself. I set up a spreadsheet to divide 65,535 by every number from 1 to 65,535 itself, then multiply the number by that result. So, for example, it divided 65,535 by 26 to get 2,520.577. Then it multiplied 26 by 2,520.577 to get… 100,000?! Over ten thousand of these simple calculations gave the wrong answer.

Read More